DOCSLIB.ORG

The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020 FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN August 2020 The Price of Public Health Care Insurance, 2020 by Milagros Palacios and Bacchus Barua SUMMARY Canadians often misunderstand the true mon Canadian family types, depending on the cost of our public health care system. This oc- type of family. curs partly because Canadians do not incur The 10 percent of Canadian families with direct expenses for their use of health care, and the lowest incomes will pay an average of about partly because Canadians cannot readily deter- $471 for public health care insurance in 2020. mine the value of their contribution to public The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn health care insurance. an average income of $65,522 will pay an aver- In 2020, preliminary estimates suggest the age of $6,627 for public health care insurance, average payment for public health care insur- and the families among the top 10 percent of ance ranges from $4,190 to $14,474 for six com- income earners in Canada will pay $39,731. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 1 The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020 Introduction ans cannot easily work out precisely what they The purpose of this research bulletin is to help pay to government each year for health care individual Canadians and their families better because there are many different sources of understand how much they annually contribute government revenues that may contribute to to Canada’s public health care system. funding health care, including income taxes, Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension While Canadians may not be billed direct- Plan (CPP) premiums, property taxes, profit ly when they use medical services, they pay a taxes, sales taxes, taxes on the consumption of substantial amount of money for health care alcohol and tobacco, and import duties, among through the country’s tax system. Unfortunate- others. Some Canadians might assume that in ly, the size of these tax payments is hard to de- those provinces that assess them, health care termine because there is no “dedicated” health premiums cover the cost of health care. How- insurance tax. As a result, individuals and fami- ever, the reality is that these premiums cover lies often cannot fully appreciate the true cost just a fraction of the cost of health care and are they pay towards the public health care system. paid into general revenue from which health care is funded. Why the misunderstanding? The available numbers can be difficult to digest. One reason why Canadians don’t know the true For example, health spending figures are often cost of health care is because the physician and presented in aggregate, resulting in numbers so hospital services that are covered by tax-fund- large they are almost meaningless. For instance, ed health care insurance are free at the point approximately $172 billion of our tax dollars were of use.1 This situation leads many people to un- estimated to have been spent on publicly funded derestimate the true cost of health care as it ig- health care in 2019 (CIHI, 2019).4 nores the substantial taxpayer-funded cost of It is more informative to measure the cost of our the system.2 health care system in per capita dollars: the $172 Furthermore, health care in Canada is financed billion spent equates to approximately $4,582 through general government revenues rather per Canadian (CIHI, 2019; Statistics Canada, than through a dedicated tax,3 which blurs the 2020b; authors’ calculations). This would be the true dollar cost of the service. Indeed, Canadi- cost of the public health care insurance plan if every Canadian resident paid an equal share. 1 Free in a monetary sense. There are, however, However, Canadians do not pay equal tax costs associated with health care use in Canada that amounts each year. Some Canadians are chil- are not monetized, such as wait times for access to medical services. For more on this, see Globerman, 2013. 4 This figure includes health spending from pro- vincial and territorial government funds, federal 2 It is also important to consider the costs associ- health transfers to the provinces and territories, ated with funding health care through tax revenues. and provincial government health transfers to local For more on this, see Esmail, 2008. governments. It does not include federal direct, mu- 3 A dedicated tax is earmarked and separated from nicipal government, and social security funds, which other taxes; its revenues are used for a particular together accounted for 7.6 percent of total public purpose. sector spending on health care in 2019 (CIHI, 2019). fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 2 The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020 Table 1: Average Income and Average Total Tax Bill of Representative Families, 2020* Family Type Average Cash Average Total Tax Rate Health Care Income ($) Tax Bill ($) Insurance ($) Unattached Individuals 44,153 17,000 38.5% 4,894 2 Parents, 0 Children 115,066 47,749 41.5% 13,745 2 Parents, 1 Child 133,119 46,072 34.6% 13,262 2 Parents, 2 Children 142,449 50,282 35.3% 14,474 1 Parent, 1 Child 58,649 14,940 25.5% 4,301 1 Parent, 2 Children 64,133 14,555 22.7% 4,190 * Preliminary estimates Source: The Fraser Institute's Canadian Tax Simulator, 2020. dren and dependents and are not taxpay- care insurance. The estimated total tax bill for ers. Conversely, higher-income earners bear a the average Canadian family in 2020 is derived greater proportion of the tax burden than low- from Palacios and Fuss (2020) while total health er-income earners and thus contribute propor- care expenditures for 2020 are based on the tionally more to our public health care system. average growth rate for the five-year period Various tax exemptions and credits also fur- from 2015 to 2019. The proportion of the fam- ther complicate matters. Clearly, the per-capita ily’s tax bill devoted to health care insurance is spending measure does not accurately repre- assumed to be the same proportion of tax rev- sent the true cost of public health care insur- enues spent on health care by the government. ance for Canadian individuals and families. In 2020/21, an estimated 28.8 percent of tax revenues (income) will be spent on health care The cost of health care by family type (Statistics Canada, 2020a; CIHI, 2019; Fraser In- stitute, 2020; authors’ calculations). In order to more precisely estimate the cost of public health care insurance for the average Table 1 shows six Canadian family types, the es- Canadian family in 2020, we must determine timated average income6 for those family types how much tax an average family pays to all lev- els of government and the percentage of the taxes, motor vehicle licence fees, natural resource 5 family’s total tax bill that pays for public health fees, and a host of other levies. For further details on how the total tax bill is calculated for the aver- age Canadian family, see the methodology section at 5 The total tax bill includes income taxes (personal Palacios and Fuss (2020). and business), property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, health taxes, import duties, taxes on the con- 6 The definition of “income” used throughout this sumption of alcohol and tobacco, fuel taxes, carbon article is cash income, which includes wages and fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 3 The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020 Figure 1: Inflation-adjusted Cost of Public Health Care Insurance, for Representative Families, 2019 and 2020 16,000 14,000 2019 12,000 2020 10,000 8,000 2020$ 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Unattached 2 Parents, 2 Parents, 2 Parents, 1 Parent, 1 Parent, Individuals 0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 1 Child 2 Children Sources: The Fraser Institute’s Canadian Tax Simulator, 2020; BMO, 2020; CIBC, 2020; RBC, 2020; authors’ calculations. in 2020, and their estimated dollar contribu- Figure 1 shows the inflation-adjusted7 cost of tion to health care. The calculations presented public health care insurance for the six rep- assume that the health care insurance paid by resentative family types from 20198 to 2020. each Canadian family comes from their total Based on the assumptions detailed above, pre- tax bill. liminary estimates suggest that the cost of pub- lic health care insurance in 2020 will increase: In 2020, the average unattached (single) indi- vidual, earning an average income of $44,153, will pay approximately $4,894 for public health 7 Calculated using the consumer price index (CPI), care insurance. An average Canadian fam- and presented in constant 2020 dollars. For the year ily consisting of two adults and two children 2020, the CPI index was estimated based on the (earning approximately $142,449) will pay about average of private forecasters (BMO Capital Markets, $14,474 for public health care insurance. 2020; CIBC Economics, 2020; TD Economics, 2020; and RBC Economics, 2020). 8 Estimates in this study are based calculations by salaries, self-employment income (farm and non- Palacios and Fuss (2020), who use Statistics Can- farm), interest, dividends, private and government ada’s Social Policy Simulation Database and Model pension payments, old age pension payments, and (SPSD/M) to allocate federal taxes to the provinces other transfers from governments (such as the uni- as well as cash income and tax shares to various versal child care benefit). family types. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 4 The Price of Public Health Care Insurance 2020 Table 2: Average Income and Total Tax Bill in Each Decile, 2020* Decile Average Cash Average Total Tax Rate Health Care Income ($) Tax Bill ($) Insurance ($) 1 14,168 1,636 11.5% 471 2 29,989 5,521 18.4% 1,589 3 40,760 10,958 26.9% 3,154 4 52,077 16,940 32.5% 4,876 5 65,522 23,020 35.1% 6,627 6 81,820 29,270 35.8% 8,426 7 99,817 37,774 37.8% 10,874 8 123,868 47,494 38.3% 13,672 9 158,939 63,778 40.1% 18,359 10 281,988 138,023 48.9% 39,731 Notes: * Preliminary estimates ** Deciles group families from lowest to highest incomes with each group containing 10% of all families.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chretien Consensus
    End of the CHRÉTIEN CONSENSUS? Jason Clemens Milagros Palacios Matthew Lau Niels Veldhuis Copyright ©2017 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The authors of this publication have worked independently and opinions expressed by them are, therefore, their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Fraser Institute or its supporters, Directors, or staff. This publication in no way implies that the Fraser Institute, its Directors, or staff are in favour of, or oppose the passage of, any bill; or that they support or oppose any particular political party or candidate. Date of issue: March 2017 Printed and bound in Canada Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data End of the Chrétien Consensus? / Jason Clemens, Matthew Lau, Milagros Palacios, and Niels Veldhuis Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-88975-437-9 Contents Introduction 1 Saskatchewan’s ‘Socialist’ NDP Begins the Journey to the Chrétien Consensus 3 Alberta Extends and Deepens the Chrétien Consensus 21 Prime Minister Chrétien Introduces the Chrétien Consensus to Ottawa 32 Myths of the Chrétien Consensus 45 Ontario and Alberta Move Away from the Chrétien Consensus 54 A New Liberal Government in Ottawa Rejects the Chrétien Consensus 66 Conclusions and Recommendations 77 Endnotes 79 www.fraserinstitute.org d Fraser Institute d i ii d Fraser Institute d www.fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary TheChrétien Consensus was an implicit agreement that transcended political party and geography regarding the soundness of balanced budgets, declining government debt, smaller and smarter government spending, and competi- tive taxes that emerged in the early 1990s and lasted through to roughly the mid-2000s.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebalanced and Revitalized: a Canada Strong
    Rebalanced and Revitalized A Canada Strong and Free Mike Harris & Preston Manning THE FRASER INSTITUTE 2006 Copyright ©2006 by The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The authors have worked independently and opinions expressed by them are, therefore, their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the supporters or the trustees of The Fraser Institute. The opinions expressed in this document do not necessary represent those of the Montreal Economic Institute or the members of its board of directors. This publication in no way implies that the Montreal Economic Institute or the members of its board of directors are in favour of, or oppose the passage of, any bill. Series editor: Fred McMahon Director of Publication Production: Kristin McCahon Coordination of French publication: Martin Masse Design and typesetting: Lindsey Thomas Martin Cover design by Brian Creswick @ GoggleBox Editorial assistance provided by White Dog Creative Inc. Date of issue: June 2006 Printed and bound in Canada Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Harris, Mike, 945- Rebalanced and revitalized : a Canada strong and free / Mike Harris & Preston Manning Co-published by Institut économique de Montréal. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0–88975–232–X . Canada--Politics and government--2006-. 2. Government information-- Canada. 3. Political participation--Canada. 4. Federal-provincial relations-- Canada. 5. Federal government--Canada. I. Manning, Preston, 942- II. Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.) III. Institut économique de Montréal IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Regulatory Burden
    About the authors Canada’s Laura Jones is the Director of the Centre for Studies in Risk and Regulation at The Fraser Institute. She joined The Fraser Insti- tute in 1996 to develop the Institute’s policy Regulatory Burden on the environment. Since joining the Insti- tute, she has edited Fish or Cut Bait! The Case for Individual Transferable Quotas in the Salmon Fishery of British Columbia, Glo- How Many Regulations? bal Warming: The Science and the Politics and Safe Enough? Managing Risk and Regu- lation. Ms Jones has also published articles in Fraser Forum, The Vancouver Sun, the At What Cost? Ottawa Citizen, and the Financial Post. She is the author of Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species in Canada and was a co- author of four editions of Environmental In- dicators for Canada and the United States, a by Laura Jones Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin. She received her B.A. in Economics from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, and her and Stephen Graf M.A. in Economics from Simon Fraser Uni- versity in British Columbia. Prior to joining the Institute, she taught economics at Co- quitlam College and is currently teaching Economic Issues at the British Columbia In- stitute of Technology. Stephen Graf holds a Bachelor of Busi- Contents ness Administration, with joint majors in business and economics, from Simon Fraser University (1999). He will enter his third year of study at the University of British Co- 3 Direct and indirect costs of regulation lumbia’s Faculty of Law in September 2001. Stephen participated in The Fraser Insti- tute’s Student Leaders’ Colloquium in 1998 7 What is regulation? and worked as an intern at The Fraser Insti- tute in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy Incentives: Canadian Health Reform in an International Context
    Healthy Incentives: Canadian Health Reform in an International Context © The Fraser Institute, 1996 © The Fraser Institute, 1996 Healthy Incentives: Canadian Health Reform in an International Context edited by William McArthur, M.D., Cynthia Ramsay and Michael Walker The Fraser Institute Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada © The Fraser Institute, 1996 Copyright © 1996 by The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embod- ied in critical articles and reviews. The authors of this book have worked independently and opinions expressed by them, therefore, are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members or the trustees of The Fraser Institute. Printed and bound in Canada. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Healthy incentives Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88975-165-X 1. Medical care, Cost of. 2. Medical care, Cost of—Canada. 3. Medical policy. 4. Medical policy—Canada. 5. Health care reform —Canada I. Ramsay, Cynthia, 1969– II. Walker, Michael, 1945– III. McArthur, William, 1934– IV. Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.) RA412.5.C2H42 1996 338.4’33621’0971 C96–910378–6 © The Fraser Institute, 1996 Table of Contents Preface ...............................vii About the authors ........................ xxi Part I: Health Care Systems in Europe and Australasia Britain’s NHS—Coping with Change............. 3 Working Class Patients and the British State: an Historical Perspective ................. 15 Lessons from Britain’s National Health Service ....... 27 What Can Europe’s Health Care Systems Tell Us About the Market’s Role? ............... 39 Sweden’s Health Care System ...............
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian STUDENT REVIEW
    Canadian STUDENT REVIEW BEWARE BOUTIQUE TAX CREDITS QUARTERLY STUDENT MAGAZINE STUDENT QUARTERLY SPRING 2021 Video Highlight: WHAT’S Essential Austrian Blog Post: INSIDE Economics: Tax reform should play crucial Student Article: Interventionism role in COVID recovery Manufacturing in Canada EDITORS Daniela Castillo, Ryan Hill LAYOUT AND DESIGN Carolina Wong PRODUCTION EDITOR Kristin McCahon PHOTO CREDITS iStock, Pexels To receive a subscription, or to write to us about articles you read in this publication, contact us at: Canadian Student Review 1770 Burrard Street, 4th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V6J 3G7 TEL 604.688.0221 ext. 538 FAX 604.688.8539 EMAIL [email protected] Copyright © 2021, the Fraser Institute DATE OF ISSUE Spring 2021 ISSN 1707-116X (online edition) Canadian Student Review is sponsored by the Lotte & John Hecht Memorial Foundation. Canadian Student Review is published by the Fraser Institute. The views contained within are strictly those of the authors. Our mission is to improve the quality of life for Canadians, their families and future generations by studying, measuring and broadly communicating the effects of government policies, entrepreneurship and choice on their well-being. 2 FRASERINSTITUTE.ORG | CANADIAN STUDENT REVIEW Canadian STUDENT REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 . Welcome Message 8 14 5 . Beware Boutique Tax Credits Student contributor William Dunstan explains why narrowly targeted tax credits unnecessarily complicate the tax system. 8 . Video Gallery SPRING 2021 This video from the Essential Austrian Economics series, uncovers the unintended consequences on the market of policy interventions. 9 . Manufacturing in Canada For Canada to build a strong domestic manufacturing industry, it will need to leverage its advantages to compete effectively, says student contributor Brennan Sorge.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Policy Sources
    PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES Number 37 Productivity and Economic Performance An Overview of the Issues Marc T. Law Contents Executive summary...............................................................................................................3 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 5 Growth accounting: determining the sources of economic growth ............................................ 6 Empirical growth accounting: what do the data tell us?........................................................... 10 Growth theory: the causes of economic growth....................................................................... 12 Productivity growth and economic performance in Canada..................................................... 17 What next? Prospects for policy and research ......................................................................... 24 Appendix 1 The algebra of growth accounting .................................................................... 27 Appendix 2 An overview of recent policy papers on productivity .......................................... 28 References ........................................................................................................................... 32 About the author ................................................................................................................. 36 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................36
    [Show full text]
  • Read the News Release
    NEWS RELEASE Canada ranks poorly for testing rates and hospital beds, keys to successful COVID response; prolonged lockdowns deemed ineffective May 26, 2021 For immediate release VANCOUVER—A detailed statistical analysis of nearly 200 countries and their experiences with and responses to COVID-19 found that Canada ranked poorly compared to other industrialized countries on testing and hospital beds, which were determined to be key in responding to COVID-19, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan, Canadian public policy think-tank. Global Storm: The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Responses around the World is a new study that analyses the COVID-19 responses of nearly 200 countries around the world over the past year. “While no two countries tackled COVID-19 the same way, there are important lessons that Canada should learn going forward,” said Livio Di Matteo, an economics professor at Lakehead University, Fraser Institute senior fellow and study author. The study highlights factors that have been successful at reducing transmission of COVID-19 cases and lowering mortality rates based on a detailed statistical analysis of available data. The study finds that early and strictly enforced lockdowns did work initially to reduce the spread and mortality, but that prolonged lockdowns instituted later in the pandemic were less effective. Instead, high rates of testing and access to hospital beds have proven successful at reducing transmission and lowering mortality rates. Canada ranked 26th out of 35 IMF advanced economies in its COVID-19 tests per million population. Another important factor was the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population as each additional bed was associated with 31.5 fewer COVID-19 deaths per million population.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal and Provincial Debt-Interest Costs for Canadians by Jake Fuss and Steve Lafleur
    FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN February 2021 Federal and Provincial Debt-Interest Costs for Canadians by Jake Fuss and Steve Lafleur Summary In recent years, deficit spending and grow- 2020/21, which is roughly equivalent to what ing government debt have become a trend for the government expects to spend on Equaliza- many Canadian governments. Like households, tion ($20.6 billion) and collect in Employment governments are required to pay interest on Insurance Premiums ($21.5 billion). their debt. Ontarians are projected to spend $20.3 bil- In aggregate, the provinces and federal gov- lion on combined federal and provincial inter- ernment are expected to spend $49.6 billion on est costs in 2020/21, which is more than the interest payments in 2020/21. province will spend on infrastructure this year. Residents in Newfoundland & Labrador face Meanwhile, total expenditures on interest by far the highest combined federal-provincial costs for Albertans ($4.8 billion) is close to the interest payments per person ($2,604). Quebec, expected spending on advanced education in Canada’s second most populous province, is the the province. Combined federal-provincial in- next highest at $1,417 per person. terest costs for British Columbians ($5.5 billion) The federal government alone will spend are more than what the province expects to $20.2 billion on debt servicing charges in spend on its Medical Services Plan this year. fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 1 Federal and Provincial Debt-Interest Costs Introduction Table 1: Federal and Provincial Interest For more than a decade, deficit spending and Costs, 2020-21 growing government debt have become a trend Interest costs Interest costs for many Canadian governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Freedom of North America 2020
    Dean Stansel, José Torra & Fred McMahon Economic Freedom of North America 2020 The map uses the subnational index. MOST FREE 2ND QUARTILE 3RD QUARTILE LEAST FREE Economic Freedom of North America 2020 Dean Stansel, José Torra, and Fred McMahon FRASER I N S T I T U T E Fraser Institute 2020 ii / Economic Freedom of North America 2020 / Stansel, Torra, McMahon Copyright ©2020 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The opinions expressed by the authors are those of the individuals themselves, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Fraser Institute, its Board of Directors, its donors and supporters, or its staff. This publication in no way implies that the Fraser Institute, its directors, or staff are in favor of, or oppose the passage of, any bill; or that they support or oppose any particular political party or candidate. Printed and bound in Canada Date of issue: 2020 Cover design by Peng Wei. Cite this publication Authors: Dean Stansel, José Torra, and Fred McMahon Title: Economic Freedom of North America 2020 Publisher: Fraser Institute Date of publication: 2020 Digital copy available at <https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-north-america-2020>. Cataloguing Information Stansel, Dean Economic freedom of North America 2020 / Dean Stansel, José Torra, and Fred McMahon. 2002– Issues for 2004– have subtitle: Annual report; issues for 2008– have subtitle: Annual report (Canadian edition); issues for 2010– have subtitle: 2010; issues for 2011– have subtitle: 2011; issues for 2012– have subtitle: 2012; issues for 2013– have subtitle: 2013; issues for 2014– have subtitle: 2014; issues for 2015– have subtitle: 2015; issues for 2016– have subtitle: 2016; issues for 2017– have subtitle: 2017; issues for 2018– have subtitle: 2018; issues for 2019– have subtitle: 2019; issues for 2020– have subtitle: 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Complexity in 2019: Can It Be Tamed?
    Tax Complexity in 2019 Can It be Tamed? Finn Poschmann, François Vaillancourt, and Jake Fuss INCOME TAX ACT 2019 fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive summary / i Introduction / 1 How to Measure Tax Complexity / 5 Tax Complexity: Measurement for Canada / 8 Tax Complexity, Policy Responses, and Electronic Filings / 14 Observations from Other Jurisdictions / 21 Conclusion / 23 References / 24 About the authors / 30 Acknowledgments / 31 Publishing information / 32 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 33 Purpose, funding, and independence / 33 About the Fraser Institute / 34 Editorial Advisory Board / 35 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive summary Tax complexity matters to all Canadians, mostly owing to the considerable resources and time that families and businesses spend on compliance. Many of us incur substantial costs: time invested and money spent on professional legal and accounting services, and on tax preparers and tax software. Further, the Canadian tax system is recognized as being com- plex, hard to understand, and in urgent need of reform. This study uses three broad categories of indicators to measure tax complexity: tax expenditures, tax legislation, and tax guides. Each indicator empirically measures a different aspect of tax complexity, and all three indi- cate that Canada’s tax system has become increasingly complex since 1996. The number of federal personal income tax (PIT) tax expenditures increased from 111 to 146 (32 percent) from 1996 to 2016. The number of federal corporate income tax (CIT) tax expenditures increased from 66 to 76 (15 percent), and the number of federal goods and services tax (GST) expenditures increased too, but to a lesser degree (9 percent).The dollar value of federal tax expenditures has also markedly increased over the same period.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2020
    2020 Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2020 Bacchus Barua and Mackenzie Moir 2020 • Fraser Institute Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2020 by Bacchus Barua and Mackenzie Moir Contents Executive Summary / i Introduction / 1 1. Method / 2 2. How much does Canada spend on health care compared to other countries? / 8 3. How well does Canada’s health-care system perform? / 11 4 Health status and outcomes / 34 Conclusion / 40 Appendix—additional tables and data / 41 References / 50 About the Authors / 55 Acknowledgments / 56 Publishing Information / 57 Purpose, Funding, and Independence / 58 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 58 About the Fraser Institute / 59 Editorial Advisory Board / 60 Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2020 • Barua and Moir • i Executive Summary Comparing the performance of different countries’ health-care systems provides an opportunity for policy makers and the general public to determine how well Canada’s health-care system is performing relative to its international peers. Overall, the data examined suggest that, although Canada’s is among the most expensive universal-access health-care systems in the OECD, its performance is modest to poor. This study uses a “value for money approach” to compare the cost and performance of 28 universal health-care systems in high-income countries. The level of health-care expenditure is measured using two indicators, while the performance of each country’s health-care system is measured using 43 indi- cators, representing the four broad categories: [1] availability of resources [2] use of resources [3] access to resources [4] quality and clinical performance. This year’s report includes one new resource indicator (long-term care bed availability) and two new patient safety indicators: post-operative wound dehis- cence; and post-operative sepsis after abdominal surgery.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Economic Performance in Five Pre-Recession Periods
    2021 COMPARING ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN FIVE PRE-RECESSION PERIODS Jason Clemens, Milagros Palacios, and Niels Veldhuis 2021 Fraser Institute Comparing Economic Performance in Five Pre-Recession Periods by Jason Clemens, Milagros Palacios, and Niels Veldhuis Contents Executive Summary / i Introduction / 1 1 Income / 3 2 Labour Markets / 11 3 Business Investment / 15 Notes and References / 18 About the Authors / 22 Publishing Information / 24 About the Fraser Institute / 25 Purpose, Funding, and Independence / 25 Peer review —validating the accuracy of our research / 26 Editorial Advisory Board / 26 fraserinstitute.org Clemens, Palacios, Veldhuis • Comparing Economic Performance in Five Pre-Recession Periods • i Executive Summary This study contrasts the economic performance in the last five pre-recession per- iods: 1986–1989 (Mulroney), 1997–2000 (Chrétien), 2005–2008 (Martin-Harper), 2011–2014 (Harper), and 2016–2019 (Trudeau). It includes multiple measures for income, labour, and business investment and focuses on comparisons between the most recent performance during the Trudeau period (2016–2019) and the previous four periods given the dramatic changes in fiscal and regulatory policies introduced by the Trudeau government. This is not, however, meant to imply that all variations in economic performance are caused by federal policies. Indeed, provincial and local government policies are also of great importance as are exogenous factors outside the direct control of government. (1) Income The broadest measure of income is gross domestic product (GDP). The Chrétien period experienced the highest average annual rates (adjusted for inflation) of both overall GDP growth (4.6%) and per-person GDP growth (3.7%). The Trudeau per- iod recorded the lowest rates for both: 2.1% for overall GDP growth and 0.8% for per-person GDP growth.
    [Show full text]